IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? · is luke’s account of jesus historically reliable? | uncover.org.au/reliable page 1 of 10 | © 2015 afes uncover is luke’s

IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? | UNCOVER.ORG.AU/RELIABLE

Page 1 of 10 | © 2015 AFES Uncover

IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE?

UNCOVER.ORG.AU/RELIABLE

Introduction and Synopsis

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that Luke’s account of Jesus is historically reliable. In doing so we shall marshal seven lines of evidence and arrive at a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusion. We will not attempt to ‘prove’ it. Formally speaking, ‘proof’ only applies to the domain of mathematics and logic and so is the wrong category for analysing historical claims. Rather than ‘prove’ Luke as historically reliable, we will demonstrate that given all the available data, it is more probable than not, that Luke is historically reliable. As we proceed we will endeavour to show that (1) What happened in Jesus life, was (2) Remembered accurately and then, (3) Written down faithfully, before it was (4) Copied reliably, so that (5) What has come down to us in Luke is an accurate record of what actually happened in Jesus life.

1. Luke is based on Eyewitness evidence



Luke’s opening statement orients us to the nature and purpose of his work. Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke opens his account by following the historical conventions exhibited in other works of antiquity.1 Obviously Luke intends his work to be taken seriously. He insists, along with the other New Testament authors that his written work is based on eyewitness testimony.2 He describes those he received his information from as “eyewitnesses and servants of the Word”. That is, Luke’s account of Jesus comes from the fresh memories of original disciples of Jesus. We ascertain from elsewhere in the New Testament that Luke knew and travelled extensively with the Apostle Paul and through him had access to the original apostolic circle.3 Ancient Historian Paul Barnett says that Luke ‘had extensive associations with Paul, considerable contact with Mark, and opportunity to meet Peter (in Rome 2Tim4:11, 1Pt5:13)’.4 In addition to interviewing eyewitnesses, Luke had access to some written accounts of Jesus life (‘drawn up accounts’). The overwhelming majority of scholars believe at least one of these written sources was the Gospel of Mark.5 Luke quotes about 60 per cent of Mark as he constructs his account, but he also uses other sources.6 We can imagine Luke thoroughly consulting the various written sources and interviewing key eyewitnesses as part of his ‘careful investigation of everything 1 The histories of Jewish author Josephus, and Greek writers Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, and Lucian. In ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ Craig L. Blomberg, pg7, (This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative). Accessed via http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/jesus_of_nazareth_how_historians_can_know_him_and_why_it_matters 2 3 Other examples: (1) The Apostle John writes ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.’ (1 John 1:1). (2) The Apostle Peter writes ‘We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty…’ (2 Peter 1:16). (3) The Apostle Paul writes ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles …’ (1 Corinthians 15:3). 3 In Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts, on four occasions he writes in the first person plural (‘we’) to indicate his inclusion in Paul’s travel posse (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-16, 21:1-18, & 27:1-28:16). Paul mentions Luke in three of his letters, (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11 & Philemon 24). 4 Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) p114. 5 John Dickson, Investigating Jesus: An Historian’s Quest, (Lion Hudson, 2010) p 107. 6 Scholars detect 2 other sources known as ‘Q’ (A source he shared with Matthew. Q stands for ‘quelle’ which is German for ‘source’), and ‘L’ which denotes Luke’s own unique source (not shared by the other 3 gospel authors – Mark, Matthew, John). See Dickson, Investigating Jesus, p108-115.



from the beginning’. And the purpose of all this was to convince Theophilus as to the “certainty” of what he has been taught about Jesus.7 As we keep reading Luke we sense the historical tenor of his work. Luke’s introductory remarks are immediately followed with, ‘In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron’ (Luke 1:5). Luke continues to cite real historical people in real historical places located in real historical time throughout his work.8 Furthermore it is important to allow evidence from Luke’s second volume, Acts, to bear on this discussion.9 Acts portrays the early spread of Christianity throughout the empire after Jesus earthly ministry and what becomes evident is that Luke is an excellent compiler of historical, geographical, and political facts. Throughout Acts, many of the people, place names, customs and special terminology checks out with what we know from other writings, artefacts and archaeological discoveries of that time. E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of classics at Auckland University wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is no shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth.”10 Likewise, eminent historian and archaeologist Sir William Ramsay who initially approached Acts with incredulity, eventually changed his mind, “I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts] … but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.” 11 Regarding Acts, Roman historian Sherwin-White concludes, “…any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”12 The fact that Acts is replete with such careful historical detail augurs well for his first volume, Luke. We can be confident that Luke is both able and intending to record history. Our first point is this: Luke is not someone far removed from the time and place of the events he describes. He possesses both a keen eye for historical detail, and access to the original generation who saw and heard Jesus. 7 Theophilus was probably a Greek man of high standing (most excellent). 8 A few examples from early in Luke: Luke 2:1 ‘In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.’ And, Luke 3:1 ‘In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.’ It certainly sounds like Luke is seeking to record historical realities. 9 Luke also writes his second volume to Theophilus and begins thus, ‘In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach … (Acts 1:1). Clearly his former book is ‘Luke’. 10 E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1970), pg96. 11 Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1982), pg8. 12 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963) pg189.



2. Luke wrote his account close to the events it describes

When did Luke write his biography about Jesus? We can’t be precise but there are good reasons to think he wrote his gospel in the early 60s. In order to date Luke we need to begin with his second volume, Acts. Acts recounts the history of what happened after Jesus earthly ministry, but interestingly, it does not contain certain events that Luke would be interested in recording. For example, he does not mention the cataclysmic events of AD 70, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem. Nor does he mention Nero’s persecution (~AD 64) and yet he takes care in recording other significant instances of persecution. Similarly, he doesn’t record the deaths/martyrdom of significant characters, such as the Apostle Paul (AD 64) or Jesus brother, James (AD 62). This is curious given the prominence of these characters and Luke’s interest in martyrdom. All this indicates that Acts was written before these events. And so it seems reasonable to date Acts around AD 62. But this means Luke was written earlier still since it precedes Acts. Therefore it is not unreasonable to date Luke’s gospel around AD 60, within thirty years of Jesus life.13 Even if we take a later date (post AD 70), we are still within the orbit of first generation witnesses and reportage. The details in Luke are written down within one generation of Jesus, while eyewitnesses were still alive to confirm or deny the facts. Luke would have realised that any details not corresponding to what people saw would instantly discredit him and his two volume work. In this case his work would never have circulated with authoritative status throughout the early Christian communities. But what happened to the information about Jesus in those intervening 30-50yrs before Luke wrote it down? Surely elements could have been forgotten or become corrupted in some way? This leads us to our next consideration.

3. Luke wrote in a culture of ‘Oral tradition’ Before any of the Gospels were written down, the details were remembered and transmitted orally.14 We must appreciate that in an era where most people couldn’t read, 15 the most common, acceptable and reliable means of transmitting information was orally (through memorisation and recitation) and not in writing. In such a culture it was commonplace for people to have minds attuned to great feats of memorisation, rehearsal, recitation and accuracy of transmission. Examples abound of Jews memorising and reciting the entire Old Testament, and similarly, Greeks reciting all of Homer’s Iliad or Odyssey verbatim.16 On top of the quantitative capacity of oral tradition there is evidence

13 Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1994), pg18. 14 Scholars call this ‘Oral Tradition’ 15 It is estimated that only 10-15% of the population could read. (J. Dickson The Christ Files,) p58. 16 Blomberg, ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ (pg 9)



for the durability of oral tradition. As Boyd and Eddy highlight, “So it is, as many orality specialists now argue, that orally dominant communities typically evidence the ability to reliably transmit historical material for long periods of time – in some cases, for centuries.”17 Relative to these vast displays of information recall, the task of memorising the details of Jesus public ministry would have been considered somewhat straightforward. To aid such data retention certain memory devices (called ‘mnemonics’) were employed, such as - repetition, parallelism, hyperbole, rhyme, chiasm, etc. We see these sorts of features reflected in the gospel documents we have.18 It is important to realise that oral tradition allowed for a dynamic involving fixity and flexibility, or stability and variety. That is, while the core truth and meaning of a story would remain fixed and protected by guardian eyewitness teachers19, certain elements could be flexible in their retelling. This accounts for some of the differences we see between the gospels. The authors felt free to shorten or paraphrase a particular event without evacuating the fixed central meaning.20 The weight given to the importance of oral tradition is well illustrated in a quote from early Christian leader Papias, who lived AD 60-130. He viewed the oral tradition about Jesus just as, if not more, authoritative as the written gospels! He gives reason why he would prefer the early Christians tell him what the apostles said rather than read it ‘…For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice.’21 In conclusion, we can be assured that the details of Jesus life were faithfully preserved by oral tradition until the time of writing. With the previous thoughts in mind we are now ready to dismiss some improbable suggestions.

4. Luke is not writing anything different to what he received from witness guarded oral

tradition It is often suggested that the facts about Jesus became altered over time, either wittingly through deliberate exaggeration or unwittingly through accidental corruption, so that what Luke eventually wrote down contained mythical

17 Gregory Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus dilemma, (Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker, 2007) p92. 18 See Dickson, Investigating Jesus: An Historian’s Quest, (Lion Hudson, 2010) p 143-148. 19 Andrew Errington remarks: ‘The living eyewitnesses safeguarded the reliability of the oral traditions about Jesus”. In, Can we trust what the Gospels say about Jesus?, (Matthias Media: 2009) pg6. See also, Richard Baukham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008). 20 For much more on this see, James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003). 21 Eusebius Ecclesastical History 3.39.4. Quoted in Dickson, The Christ Files, pg68.



elements. However this scenario is highly unlikely for the reasons we have seen and will now summarise:

1. Luke wrote his account too close to the events described (30-40yrs). There wasn’t enough time for obvious changes to occur.

2. This is doubly assured given the presence of eyewitnesses throughout the period of oral tradition ensuring ‘fact checking’ as guardians of the deposit.

3. Oral transfer of truth was the most reliable medium in that culture. A. N. Sherwin-White, Oxford scholar of ancient Greek and Roman history, has argued that the span of even two full generations is insufficient for myth and legend to accrue and distort historical fact.22 To supplement these reasons a fourth point can now be adduced:

4. Luke does not have the character of ‘myth’ but ‘bios’ history. The gospels pioneered a unique genre of writing in the ancient world. There was nothing exactly like them, and yet they do mostly resemble what was referred to as ‘bios’ (‘life’), which was a kind of ancient biography.23 Luke is setting out to write a historical biography about Jesus and not myth. Specialists in the field agree. C. S. Lewis an expert in ancient mythology said ‘As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things.’24 Along similar lines, E. A. Judge, Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University, states, ‘An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth or legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writing that sprang up about Jesus also reveals to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it’.25 Indeed, Luke himself, along with the other New Testament authors, deliberately distances his work from the category of ‘myth’.26 So in conclusion, the information Luke received and wrote down allowed no time for myth to develop, nor was his intention or style mythical. Rather Luke has self consciously written a historical biography based on eyewitness testimony.

5. Luke contains marks of authenticity 22 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 186-93. Quoted in Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 toughest faith questions. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). 23 Paul Rhodes & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A case for the historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) 2007, p323ff. See also; John Dickson, The Christ Files: How historians know what they know about Jesus. (Australia: Blue bottle books, 2006) pg 51, footnote 32. 24 Lewis, God in the dock, pg158. 25 Paul Barnett, The Truth about Jesus: The challenge of evidence, (Aquila Press, 1994), pg3 foreword. 26 The word “myth” occurs five times in the New Testament. On each occasion it is negative. Myths are where you turn to, when you turn away from the truth (2 Timothy 4:4, Titus 1:14). They can be “cleverly devised” or “irreverent and silly” but they are not Christian (1 Timothy 4:7, 2 Peter 1:16). Christians are not to devote themselves to them and their speculations (1 Timothy 1:4). For more see http://phillipjensen.com/articles/bible-myths/



As we read through Luke’s written account we note many details that would have been ‘unacceptable’ to the original audience. The inclusion of these lends weight to Luke’s trustworthiness for they pass the test of ‘the criterion of embarrassment’ used in accessing the authenticity of historical documents. The criterion of embarrassment applies to ‘an episode that would have caused embarrassment to early Christians and so is unlikely to have been invented, since people tend not to portray themselves and their leaders in a poor light in their official histories.’27 Four examples will suffice: First, in Luke 24 women are presented as the first witnesses of Jesus resurrection. This is striking in a culture that held women as unsuitable to bear witness or testimony in court.28 Why present women as the initial and key witnesses to the climactic and crucial event of the narrative, when in the wider culture a woman’s testimony was discredited? Unless it actually happened that way, Luke probably wouldn’t have recorded it. Second, is the ‘warts and all’ portrayal of the disciples in a shame/honour culture. We need to remember that the disciples became the esteemed leaders of the early church, and yet Luke presents them as ignorant, cowardly, competitive, bickering buffoons.29 Most noteworthy is Peters own shameful denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62). Dickson remarks, ‘Peter was so revered in the early church … that it is very unlikely the Gospel writers would have included a story like this unless it just happened to be (embarrassingly) true.’30 Third, is Jesus ‘offensive’ teaching. Jesus was quite the provocateur. For example he said things that would have been deeply insulting to the Jewish view of family. In Luke 8:19-21 Jesus appears to neglect his own family and then redefine the very notion of family. In Luke 11:51-53 he talks of coming to bring division to families. In Luke 14:26-17 Jesus speaks of ‘hating’ ones parents as a precondition to following him. In Luke 9:61 he instructs a man not to farewell his family before following him. Other examples of his strange or offensive teaching include: calling female disciples (8:1), something unheard of in that age; destroying a large heard of pigs (8:32-33); making a Samaritan (social enemies of the Jews) the hero of one of his stories (10:27-37); publically confronting, rebuking and humiliating the religious leaders of the day (10:27-54, 13:15-17, 16:15, 20:45-47); and instructing the wealthy to give away all their possessions (18:22). More could be cited, but the point is that these aspects of

27 Dickson, Investigating Jesus (2010, pg127-128). 28 Ancient Jewish historian, Josephus reflects this cultural value when he says, ‘From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex’ (Jewish Antiquities 4.219.) quoted in Dickson, Investigating Jesus, p130) 29 For example in Luke 9:33 Peter is portrayed as confused. In Luke 9:45 the disciples are ignorant and fearful about Jesus plans to die. In Luke 9:46 the disciples argue over who of them is the greatest. In Luke 9:54-55 the disciples are rebuked for vengefully requesting fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village that didn’t extend hospitality to Jesus. In Luke 10:20 Jesus corrects the disciples for rejoicing in their newly received spiritual powers rather than that they are saved. In Luke 18:15 Jesus shows his disciples are wrong for rebuking parents who brought children to see Jesus. 30 Investigating Jesus, 128.



Luke would not curry any obvious favour with the audience. Why include these things if not true? Fourth, the climactic events of Jesus death and resurrection were considered culturally anathema to both Jews and Greeks. The claim that the Messiah died a shameful death by crucifixion was deeply offensive and scandalous to a community who expected a mighty and victorious leader to quash the Romans. Equally confusing would have been Jesus resurrection, for Israel hoped in a national resurrection at the end of history rather than an individual resurrection in the middle of history.31 Also for the Greek audience a dying King was the epitome of folly and a physical resurrection abrasive to their exaltation of spirit over flesh.32 To summarise, that Luke includes many embarrassing features points to the authenticity of his work. Luke is unlikely to have made these things up for they would have been counterproductive to his purpose of persuading Theophilus, and any secondary audience, as to ‘the certainty’ of these things. He included them, despite their repellent nature, because that is what happened.

6. The details of Jesus life that Luke records are corroborated by independent Non-biblical

sources Apart from the New Testament writings about Jesus we have other Non Christian written sources to draw upon.33 These are a mixture of Jewish and Roman documents that when added up present us with a portrait of Jesus that coheres with Luke’s own account. To view the sources please refer to the appendix*, but suffice to say, when you add up the details about Jesus life from these Non Christian sources you discover the following facts about Jesus:

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar. 2. His mothers name was Mary 3. His conception was irregular 4. He lived a virtuous life. 5. He was a renowned teacher 6. He was thought to be a wonder-worker. 7. He had a brother named James. 8. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah. 9. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. 10. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover. 11. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died. 12. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.

31 Eg. Daniel 12:2-3, 13 and John 11:24 32 In Greek thinking the body was considered the prison of the soul, and the whole point was to have ones spirit released from the body. A resurrection body therefore seemed like a backward step. Why would anyone want his or her body back? 33 See Dickson, Investigating Jesus: An Historian’s Quest, (Lion Hudson, 2010) Chapter 6. p69-85.



13. His disciples were willing to die for their belief. 14. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome. 15. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

Thus we have external and independent corroborating evidence that corresponds to Luke’s portrayal of Jesus.

7. Luke has been faithfully preserved and handed down to us

Do we have what Luke originally wrote or has it been changed? After all it is possible for Luke to have recorded eyewitness evidence in his original autograph, but that truth to have become distorted over many generations of copying. Thankfully, this is demonstrably false. All one is required to do is compare our contemporary versions of Luke with the earliest copies available to see if any errors or embellishments occurred. The earliest copies of Luke’s gospels have undoubtedly perished and so we are at the mercy of archaeological discoveries. To date, the oldest discovered manuscript containing portions of Luke is called the ‘Bodmer Papyrus XIV’, otherwise known as P75. It is dated to about AD 180-200. Major sections of Luke are also contained in the ‘Chester Beatty Papyri’, which is dated to approximately AD 250. And we have complete copies of all the gospels from around AD 325.34 When these earliest manuscripts are compared with current versions we see that the copying process has been tremendously accurate, for there are no substantial changes.35

And so if the text of Luke hasn’t been changed since AD 200 we have no real basis to infer any changes in the first two generations of copying, especially given the probable presence of remaining witnesses and the devotional seriousness with which copyists approached their work. To put it more starkly, if there have been no real changes to Luke over 1900 years of copying on what basis do we attribute critical distortions in the first 100 years?36 If we presume Luke was written in AD 70 then that is a gap of ~110yrs to the earliest discovered copies (~AD 180). In terms of ancient historical standards this time between the Luke’s first composition and the earliest discovered copies is negligible. In fact, in contrast with all other writings of antiquity, New Testament

34 In Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Ephraemi Rescriptus. See John C. Lennox, Gunning for God: Why the new atheists are missing the target, (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2011) p193. 35 The 5,700 Greek New Testament manuscripts that are available to us do contain small variations, but these differences are superficial such as spelling and word order, and do not influence the meaning of what is taught. See Peter S. Williams, Understanding Jesus: Five ways to spiritual enlightenment, (Paternoster: 2011) p81. 36 We also have very early Christians quoting from Luke’s gospel around the turn of the first century. For example, Clement, writing to Corinth (AD 96) quotes from all three synoptic gospels, Ignatious refers to all four gospels and Acts (AD 108), as does Polycarp (AD 110). Some of these quotes cite earlier manuscripts still.



textual critics have a greater wealth of manuscripts to work with and a much shorter gap between the original document and the earliest existing copy. The New Testament sports over 5700 ancient Greek manuscripts with our earliest portions dating from early second century. This leaves a time gap of between 50-100 years between the originals and our earliest copies. The sole ancient work that comes even close to the New Testament is Homers Illiad which was written ~ BC 800 and of which we have 1,800 variously aged copies. The time gap between his original work and the earliest surviving copies (~ BC 400) is 400 years. Scholars typically treat these surviving copies (and those of many other works with even larger gaps) as authentic representations of the originals and a reliable porthole to the world and thought of the respective author.37 The words of Sir Frederic Kenyon still stand today: “The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, Bible and Archaeology. NY: Harper, 1940, p. 288). Professor Bruce Metzger, once the worlds leading New Testament textual critic said, ‘We can have great confidence in the fidelity with which this material has come down to us, especially compared with any other ancient literary work.’38

Conclusion

What we have sought to demonstrate in this paper is the following: -‐ What happened in Jesus life -‐ Was remembered accurately -‐ Was written down faithfully -‐ Was copied reliably -‐ And so is what we have in Luke today

Therefore we can have a high degree of confidence that Luke’s account of Jesus is historically reliable. Any significant remaining doubt probably arises not so much from the lack of evidence, but worldview assumptions about the possibility of the supernatural and the miraculous. On this note I direct your attention to the paper on ‘Miracles’.

37See ‘Updating the Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament’ by Norman L. Geisler (September 2013) accessed - http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bible/Reliability/Norman%20Geisler%20-%20Updating%20the%20Manuscript%20Evidence%20for%20the%20New%20Testament.pdf 38 Interview recorded by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), p63.

IS LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF JESUS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? · is luke’s account of jesus historically reliable? | uncover.org.au/reliable page 1 of 10 | © 2015 afes uncover is luke’s

Documents